Essay Example on Efforts to Reduce Politics in State Judges' Elections: A Need for Independence

Introduction

Currently, various proposals have been initiated by governors, courts, legislators, and even the general public in most of the states to attempt and restrict the roles played by the politics in the process of state judges’ elections. Some of these initiatives have underscored the acknowledgment that the judiciary is supposed to be exclusively independents from any form of influence since it is critical to the maintenance of public confidence and trust in the judicial service system. Overall, the US Judicature Society, via funding from various Open Society Institute have significantly contributed by compiling information on the judicial selection procedures in every state with America (Escovitz et al.,1975). The institutes have several subjects that are relevant to the existing court systems, such as removing, retaining, and selection strategy of judges, the political influence, and even the roles played by various professional groups and parties in the entire process.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The methods of selection of judge, whether through appointment or election, have been one of the major topics of debate with some legislators referring to it as "justice on sale." This has initiated the call for changes in the existing procedures of selecting, assessing, removing, and retaining judges by the legislators throughout the US. Various court advocates and legislators in some states are advocating for the replacement of a politicized judicial selection system with a more effective accountable process to ensure public confidence, accountability, and impartiality within the judicial system in the US.

Overall, there are two main judicial selection methods, that is, appointment and election methods. Different state opts for different methods. For instance, in over 33 states, the judges are selected through an appointive procedure referred to as merit selection. The appointment selection method is practiced in several forms. It is perusable that the appointive strategy is a single individual judicial selection; that is, a chief executive possesses the power to appoint anyone to the bench. The appointive system seems to be an extension of merit selection; the process involves various steps before a judge is finally appointed.

On the other hand, in the election process, candidates’ campaigns and they are either voted in or out by ordinary citizens (Johnson & Urbis, 1992). This process of election has had to face various issues; some argue that the process gives citizens the voice to express their democratic rights in almost every system, such as by selecting their own magistrates. They further debate that the election process tends to shun any form of nepotism, favoritism of protection of other people’s interests and thus increasing the diversity on the bench. For instance, judges in Texas are chosen through the elective process, and the candidates are allowed to campaigns and solicit for funds to help them in their campaigning trail.

Based on the strive of merit selection’s struggle, various reformers tried to enhance judicial elections. For the first time, North Carolina in 2004 adopted a public financing scheme for a judicial election race, thus making judicial candidates not rely on individuals with special interests to fund their campaigns. The initiative tended to receive much bipartisan support, and many other states, such as Texas, adopted the system as well. The election process tends to be relatively better as compared to the elective process in terms of choosing judges in the US. The case of Texas State would support this since almost every state has its unique option of the selection process of the judicial judges.

Partisan Elections with a Straight-Ticket Option for Judicial Elections

All judges in Texas are chosen in partisan elections in which voters are given a straight ticket-option. Some of the advantages of the election process include the following: the process gives voters the voice and power to choose their own judges, and thus it is considered to be relatively more accountable compared to appointment system; it minimizes the influence other special interests and powerful individuals such as governors to have control over the judicial system and minimizes the role played by money in the election procedure of the judiciary.

On the other hand, the election method also has some disadvantages, some of which include: the process places excessive responsibility of judges selection on the public, and some of the public members may not even be aware of the qualification to seek for among the competing candidates; the process is likely to politicize the judicial system to a significant level compared to when the judges were appointed; it tends to inflict campaign money directly into the judicial selection process, and election method also reduces some of the lucrative incentives for judges to campaign as individuals or even for the voters to find more about their preferred candidates’ track records. Additionally, the appointment selection method also has various advantages and disadvantages, as stated below.

Advantages Appointment Selections Method

When judges have appointed the reports indicates that it will attract more candidates. In most situations, the incumbent judges who are having experience are opposed during the re-election into the office (Pearson & Castle, 1989). Many candidates are applying for the appointment position, and very few candidates run for the contested elections. Another advantage is that the candidates who have shown interest are subjected to careful scrutiny as compared to the election process. The federal appointments of judges also help in the eradication of the severe ethical conflict of interest among the candidates.

The appointment process is also important because it helps to end the unfair advantages which some of the candidates have because of their ability to raise and mobilize funds. This sometimes makes the unfit candidates with the ability to raise funds to defeat other good candidates who were not in the position of mobilizing funds. The appointment has resulted in more qualified judges being appointed as compared to the election process. From the appointment process, the attorneys, judges, bar associations have been people of merits and having the ability to serve.

Disadvantages

The judges who are appointed and did not go through the election process are sometimes very reluctant to deliver their mandate as opposed to those who elected through the election process. The judges sometimes work on the favor of the appointing authorities with the objectives of being appointed on the second round. In most situations, we find that the process of selecting the judges is being influenced by the political class which wants the judges to serve their interest. The election process seems to be a better judicial selection method based on the stated merits and demerits over each judicial selection method.

Conclusion

In conclusion, merit selection tends to have altered how politics influences the selection process within the judiciary system in various states such as Texas. However, political and partisan nature has not completely been eliminated. However, the attempts to reform the selection process of the judiciary need to be facilitated to ensure dignity in the system. Due to the various challenges, what selection method can best serve the demand of the current century? Every individual’s perception of the issues with either appointment or selection wholly relies on how a person balances the goals and judicial independence. The choice of a better selection method is to quit a debatable subject since the real issue regarding legal and political controversy is based on individual candidates’ traits and professionalism.

References

Escovitz, S. S., Kurland, F., & Gold, N. (1975). Judicial selection and tenure (p. 6). Chicago: American Judicature Society. http://sk.sagepub.com/books/judicial-independence-at-the-crossroads/n9.xml

Johnson, O. W., & Urbis, L. J. (1992). Judicial Selection in Texas: A Gathering Storm. Tex. Tech. L. Rev., 23, 525. http://www.tlrfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/TLR-Foundation_JudicialSelection_FinalWebVersion_2019-09-17.pdf

Pearson, W. M., & Castle, D. S. (1989). Alternative judicial selection devices: An analysis of Texas judges' attitudes. Judicature, 73, 34. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1455&context=lr